fort monroe

Accreditation Rating
Recommendation Tool

by Peter Kakel

TRADOC Quality Assurance Office

it it it it

Victory Through Excellent

Purpose

Provide an overview of the

Accreditation Rating
Recommendation Tool

Recommended Course Rating
School: I I Course: I CCC I

Std |

Conduct of T raining (Co^^

Weight ->

1

0.6

0

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

1

10

1

Totals 5 2.4

T otal Score
CoT Rating/P ercent
CoT Weighting Factor

0

7.40

Anber

3

74%

Std |

Proponent Functions (PF1

Met 1 muc : n

Weight ->

1

0.6

0

17

Li;

18

1

19

1

20

1

21

1

22

i

23

1

24

1

Totals

6

1.2

0

Total Score

7.20

PF Rating/P ercent

Green

90%

PF Weighting Factor

1

Weighted P ercent Scores:

CoT 2.22

TS 1 .47

PF 0.90

Weighted Average Score 0.76 = 76%

Functional Are a Rating Criteria

80% to 100%
60% to 79%
0% to 59%

2

How PME Template Works

• Workbook contains a worksheet for —

> Each course evaluated

> Each education system (OES, WOES, and NCOES), and

> Overall PME recommendation

* Course worksheet

> Ratings (MET, MET W/CMT, NOT MET, or NA/NO) are entered
for each standard

> Worksheet calculates percentage rating for COT, TS, and PF
and overall rating (green, amber, or red) for the course

* System Roll-Up worksheet

> Worksheet combines ratings for all courses evaluated in
the system and calculates percentage rating for COT, TS,
and PF, and overall rating (Full, Conditional, or Candidate)
for the system

• PME Roll-Up worksheet

> Worksheet combines ratings for all systems evaluated;
calculates overall percentage rating for COT, TS, and PF;
and calculates overall recommended accreditation rating
for Professional Military Education

How PME Template Works, Con't

Course

s

System

s

OBC

CCC

OES

WOBC

WOAC

WOE
S —

Overall

PM

E

NCOES

Record for Evaluation of Accred Stds

(TRADOC Form 350-70-4-2-R-E)

Farm tir Ffeoordlng Eualuaton ojlte. Coplac of til c form v.i'toi tfie« rrb rid ard a II cbd will bo prouldod ac partof
tio GLA Eualuator c VXtorh bo oh.

RECORD FOR EVALUATION OF ACCREDITATION STANDARDS

far. Initial Military Training, Reclassification Training, and Professional Military Education

ADMINISTRATIVE DATA

Organization bang
evaluated

Name:

LocatiorVadd-ess:

Accreditinj

3 agency Name:

Evaluator

Name :

Phene: DSN:

e-mail add-ess:

Grow ( F . ext

Address:

REPORTINGFOCUS

lypeof
Training
(OiddH Ona)

Inlial Mllferv Training

1 001 1 1 OBUT 1 1 AIT 1 1 WOCB 1 1 OCB

Raolacidloa-lon Tralnlnd

.

F*tj* cd anal Ml Iferv Ed uoa in n
On dloato ad uoal on cy <* m)

1 MCOEfl 1 1 <AOEB 1 1 OEB 1

Areas

Evaluated

Cun duo to f Training

Tralnlnd Support

PrapnnrntFLin_d_tD.n.d

RECOMMENDATION

Candidate for
Accreditation

Condticnal Accredtation

Fiji Accreditation

tfclbcfrd aldllord camridrife shoUd be Hied lolfcm nunbers )

(Front)

Proponent Functions

Standard

-

Z

HHI

•a.

n.

1 afcTn* la*. n#|-xa Mi. °

a.

22 '

CALC* a* 1 1 si V*]i* tad sails* -tart. Ai n*. sd C«rchdadirs |so.. HDt GPfGPTi 4

Us ^ic*ii4b sid ra [otio taxsirn taansd him Qsrtz* hsixjCati,. irt

a.

kxriliioi In s si) ( xaJy n [tea nt dra fata Is 4 4' wwl

(Back)

5

OBC Recommended Rating

Conduct of Training (C0T)

Recommended Co urse Rating
School: I I Course:

OBC

Weight

1
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Totals
T otal Score
CoT Rating/Percent

1

1

1

X

1

1

El

1

1

1

1

0.6

0

7.60

84%

CoT Weighting Factor

3'

Weight

Std | lufct | MmC

11

12

13

14

15

16

Training Suppo rt CTS)
_ NA/NO |

0

0.6

i

1

1

1

i

ms

Totals 4 1.2 0

T otal Score 5.20

TS Rating/P ercent
TS Weighting Factor 2

Green

87%

Weight

17

18

19

20
21
22

23

24

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

T otals 6

T otal Score
PF Rating/P ercent
PF Weighting Factor

0.6 0
6.60

83%

COT Weighting Factor i 3

Weighted P ercent Scores:
CoT 2.53

TS 1 .73

p F -e. e3

ore 0.85

85%

Functional Area Rating Criteria

Green 80% to 100% 'f

-moat-— — 60%To-79%-
0% to 59%

Met = Met the standard

MwC = Met with Comme l
Not Met = Did not meet the
standard

NA/NO = Not Applicable/
Not Observed
HHI = Higher HQs Issue

CCC Recommended Rating

Recommended Co urse Rating
School: | | Course: | CCC |

Weight

Training Support (TS)

Std | Mat | MwC BBB TWNCT*

0.6

11

12

13

14

15

16

1

1

1

1

1

1

Totals 2 2.4 0

T otal Score 4.40

T S R ating/P ercent Amber

TS Weighting Fa dor 2

73%

Weighted P ercent Scores:

CoT

2.22

TS

1.47

PF

0.90

Weighted Average Score

0.76 = 76%

Functional Area Rating Criteria

Green

Amber

80% to 100%
60% to 79%
0% to 59%

OES Recommended Rating

Recommended Rating for OES
School: | |

Evaluation Date: P

Conduct of Training (CoT)

Combined Avg Percent 0.79

79%

CoT Combined Rating Amber |
CoT Weighting Factor 3_

Training Support (TS)

Combined Avg P ercent

0.80 = 80%

TS Combined Rating

Green

TS Weighting Factor

2

Proponent Functions (PF)

Combined Avg Percent

0.86 = 86%

PF Rating

Green

PF Weighting Factor

1

In umber of Courses Evaluated 1 2 1

Weighted P ercent Scores:
CoT 2.38

TS 1 .60

1

1

1

pf _ QB6

Weighted Average Score 0.81 = 81 %

| Recommend at ion: | Full Accreditatio"

Functional Area Rating Criteria

Accreditation Rating Criteria

% Range

J nstitutioD-of -Excellence

J00%_ ,

Green

80% to 100%

T

Full Accreditation

80% to 99% |

Amber

60% to 79%

L

Conditional AxreditHtiorr

- 60% to- 79%—'

0% to 59%

Candidate for Accreditation

0% to 59%

8

Questions?

Back-up Slides

Example - RC Training Site

Recommended Cou rse Ratings

RC Training Site: | | Course:

Conduct of T raining (CoT)

Std

Met

MuC

| NANO |

TTW

Weight ->

1

0.6

0

1

1

2

1

3

1

X

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

1

10

1

Totals

8

0.6

0

T otal Score

8.60

CoT RatinglPercent

Green

86%

CoT Weighting F actor

3

Training support (TS)

Std |

LNfetJ

| MwC

I MAT-JO TTS

Weight -*

1

0.6

0

11

1

12

1

13

1

14

1

15

1

16

1

X

Totals

3

1.2

0

T otal Score

4.20

TS Rating/P ercent

Green

84%

TS Weighting Factor

2

Instructions

1 . Enter the training institution name
and course title in the appropriate
cells.

2. From the completed Record for
Evaluation of Accreditation Standards,
enter the numeral "1 " in the
appropriate cell for each standard.

3. For marking cells in the HHI column
use an "X" instead of a "1 ."

Weighted P encent Scores:
CoT 2.58

TS 1 .68

Weighted Average Score 0.85 = 85%

Functional A'ea Rating Criteria

Green

/Amber

80% to 100%
60% to 79%

0% to 59%

11